Just pondering anything meaningfull to add to the topics?of cross training with karate?By the way the kick that your sensie did on the kata that seemed to get up some peoples noses. To me that would be the Okinawan influence from someone. Low kicks and the method he used.

i quoted that from you? and no i don't stdy karate history anymore. i used to alot, but my study failed to help my understanding of my onw technique, so i stoped. it doesn't help my reverse punch to know who mabuni kenwa was. you can draw all the conclusions they want from "history research"

"By the way the kick that your sensie did on the kata that seemed to get up some peoples noses. To me that would be the Okinawan influence from someone. Low kicks and the method he used." not my sensei.

The study of history doesnt make for a better reverse punch?Well I wouldnt be to sure on that. There seems to be a big difference between Japanese and Okinawan karate. Anyhow early days still. Just trying to work out why there are technique in Jujitsu that seem to be the same as in okinawan karate?

The tekki thing. One of the escapes from the knee on the chest while kneeling on top in a certain direction I was talking about seems to have the same body mechanics as part of tekki. In fact near as exactly the same body mechanics.

I don't want to start this argument again but groundfighting on the street shouldn't be your 1st option imo. We are talking about real fighting not competition or training aren't we?

It takes your avenue of escape away and it lend your body prone to unnecessary damage, rolling on concret or in the dirt. I'll clear this up I'm not saying its not a valid skill, IF YOU NEED TO groundfight surlly be prepare to do it well enough to get backup. If you can't finish quickly down there.

I think the most oppurtuned position is him on the ground and you finishing or escaping. Again if he pulls you down groundfight of course cross train to handle most situuations. But I personally think its un-wise to spend a great amount of time rolling on the ground unless thats your only advantage. If you can't stand with him and you think he can hurt you standing take it to the ground. I preferr to sweep or body slam them and deal on them from above. I know thats always thats not the case that you can decided how and where you want to fight. But I think you can impose your will on your opponent and position him were you want.

Filling the gaps in your armour is important some feel their Karate covers all there needs. I personally feel it covers most needs but to really get into the depts of grappling wrestling,Judo, Sambo, JJ, BJJ or ... are needed. But take what works for you. Wrestling and BJJ exponents sometimes have mentioned that mulitple defense are impossible to defend. I agree if you trying pin/choke one guy out as the other guy pounds you. But Combat Sambo, Judo,JJ and Karate do pratice multiple attack drills. Weather it works 100% of the time is not the point, in reality what does. I think its better then not having a plan and strategy on what to do.

If one side thought they would alway loose there would be no Wars. No plans is a plan to fail.

Many times in War and street fights insurmountable odds were defeated by a better strategy,superior techniques and LUCK. But you have to believe and make it work, the art don't make you, you make it.

Cross train to discover the possibilities and cover the gaps in your armour, takes self exploration. Sometimes that takes a boarder view of what is.

I have a general question about karate and cross training to anyone who cares to answer. It seems that many people believe if you train grappling outside of a "karate" setting, then some the technqiues you develop and explore there cannot be a part of your karate/kata syllabus. Is this true. In the same respect what about someone who trains the striking aspect of their karate with boxers in a kick boxing gym. Can that not be a part of karate either. If there are people who feel this way about either the striking or grappling aspects of karate training, then I assume the same can be said about someone who seeks do deepen their understanding of karate by training with a White Crane Gung Fu Sifu.

I personally feel that "cross training" in MAs is simply the "hip" thing to label people's practices as if their scope falls outside of what people traditionally define them as. I think people truly have issues if they are unable to define what others do/are rather than letting them simply be who they are and do what they do.

you make a good point, and particulary over the last few years I have accepted 'karate' as a rather open term, I don't claim lineage to any specific Ryu, outside of it being Okinawan Shorin Ryu with a historical drive, functional and safe.

Of course the vast majority of influence is from the Seito Matsumura Ryu.

Anything I pick up from cross training however is noted as coming from there, rather than me thinking or saying it has always been part of classical karate, but im not sure it matters much.

I still don't agree that specific prolonged groundwork is contained within the classical kata though

We have been over the kata/ground thing before (see link above). Historical evidence that I have seen seems to indicate that groundwork was not part of the original karate syallbus, owing to an entrenched wrestling tradition as part of Okinawan culture. In effect, the karate masters saw little need to incorporate it, since wrestling/grappling was already widely practiced in that era.

That said, none of us were there to know for sure. But claims about groundwork inclusion run against a dearth of any substantial evidence otherwise.

Now, if you are making a point that contests of that era included grappling, or that masters cross-trained grappling while studying karate, that is very different from saying that "grappling/submissions are part of karate".

Again, I have no problem with cross-training anything, and do not necessarily see that as any "weakness" of the art.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

You know, ground work in a fight is usually only prolonged if you are not good at it (you can't finish your opponent or you can't get up). And sometimes it is very short if your not good at it(you get your limbs broken, you get choked out, or you get knocked out). I don't think anyone has prolonged groundwork as a strategy. In fact, I'll do you one better and say that prolonged striking is not contained within classical kata. However, in training to develop skills you can engage in prolonged striking training sessions. Training methods to develop skill are different from classical kata. I personally believe that that is a big mistake many people are making. They are confusing principles of fighting contained in classical kata with training methods. I personally look at grappling training the same way I view weight lifting or sprint training or hojo undo or calesthenics. It is a training method to develop a skill set. That is why Kyan's father trained him in a form of wrestling before he began classical karate training.

Quote:Now, if you are making a point that contests of that era included grappling, or that masters cross-trained grappling while studying karate, that is very different from saying that "grappling/submissions are part of karate".

Matt, are you saying that there are no joint locks in karate? If so we really need to go back to karate 101. Within my first month of karate training in 1990 we were taught collar chokes and standing armbars which were also used as takedowns that you can finish on the ground. And my teacher learned these from Nagamine in the 60s. And I can show you them from kata with no alterations in technique execution.